then the two sitting members of congress, richard hanna of new york, and ileana of florida.o are of the minority. more are former elected oh officials so it's easier for them to come out on this issue. but it still represents a major shift in the party. joining me now, mark solomon for freedom to marry, he comes to us from new york. mark welcome inside "the war room"." >> thank you, thank you for having me. >> reporter: put this in perspective for us. how big of a deal is this. >> this is a big deal. we've seen republicans stand up in support of freedom to marry. but to see this wide array of former governors, current around former members of congress, high ranking officials from a number of different administrations shows that there is a big swath of americans that believe that freedom means freedom for everyone. >> michael: so i looked at the list of republicans. many of these republicans are out of office now. how much sway did they really have? >> i think one thing for people who are out of office, they can take a step back and see where their party is going. what they'r

we have jon huntsman, meg whitman, representative richard hanna, steven hadley, carlos gutierrez. nia-malika, what is your opinion about how this is moving? >> if you look at those polls, particularly among younger people, there is a sense that government should be kept out of people's personal lives. that in fact is the primary argument that the tea party makes about the role of government. here you have 70 prominent republicans, most of whom are moderate, making very conservative arguments for gay marriage saying that to protect really the institution of marriage, that gays should be allowed to get married in the way that men and women are allowed to get married to each other. this is a real shift and also we've seen a huge cultural shift as well. let's face it, we saw mitt romney, a candidate courting the religious right but also saying that his favorite show was "modern family "." so i think that republicans have to figure out which way they are going to go with this issue. >> two very powerful names that have been spearheading this opposition, i got an e-mail from ken. he sai

among those who have signed on to the brief, jon huntsman, meg whitman, richard hanna., cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin and john avlon. with the amicus brief, it's essentially what it sounds like, a friend of the court, paper saying what your opinion is hoping to sway the justices. how important are amicus briefs, how important might this one actually be? >> they can be important, but i have to tell you, i really disagree with the premise that this is a lot of people. there are almost 300 members of the house and senate who are republicans. they got two people, two obscure members of the house to sign. they have a very distantly failed presidential candidate. a failed gubernatorial candidate. the republican party is united and i don't think the brief makes a bit of difference. >> john, is it baby steps? >> this is a significant step and i don't think it should be diminished. 75 is 75 more than there was a little while ago. it's the beginning of the republican party reconciling its present with the history. and these folks deserve a lot of credit for having the courage

issue, mega wittman, who supported proposition 8 originally, congresswoman lee some of florida, richard hannaf new york, stephen hadley -- back to your phone calls, sam in west point, new york, he works for the department of defense. what is your take on sequester? caller: well, there is waste in the federal government, but there is also waste in the private sector. you cannot quantify it. we have already had cut. we have had about 5-10% cuts. mostly for people who have not -- have been hired. we had contract employees, and they are now on their way out. we have not had cut since the clinton administration here. host: larry, where are you calling from? what agency do you work for? caller: i'm calling from puerto rico. the federal bureau of the provisions -- it boils down to two words for all federal employees. essential and non-essential staff. essential staff would be correctional officers. we would have to keep that. they could send secretaries home, case workers home. so you work at an ammunition depot. they would keep the security people, but they could send the secretaries home. it boils